►
From YouTube: Triage Meeting 2020.06.15
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
So,
let's
see
we'll
come
to
that
towards
the
end
and
Josh
so
action
items
there.
Any
updates
here,
I
think
kind
of
none
of
these
things
that
happened
probably,
except
for
the
one
I
crossed
out
just
fine,
maybe
I
should
do
at
least
you
don't
have
an
actual
person
to
do
this,
I
suppose
I'm
gonna,
say
Josh,
but
I
think
I'm
not
sure
what
we
meant
by
Josh
to
invite
Ryan
to
present
state
of
safe
transmute,
but
I
think
maybe
we
meant
a
design
meeting
and
I
now
have
this.
A
B
A
A
And
now
I'm
reminded
that,
okay,
you
know
I
wanted
to
as
a
first
pass
before
the
meeting
started.
Do
what
I
just
did,
but
there
wasn't
anything
so
I've
created
this
project
word
to
track
some
of
the
like
active,
ongoing
things
and
in
particular
we
have
one
pending
major
change
proposal
that
I
opened
as
a
Help.
Wanted
can
talk
about
this
scheme.
This
is
more
just
an
example
though,
but
we
had
this
proposal
for
a
meeting
proposal,
which
was
the
one
we
talked
about
last
time.
A
C
A
A
A
B
A
It
was
some
things
one
degree
Robert's
Rules
of
Order
eat.
Yes,
next
item
of
business,
RFC,
two
eight
six,
seven
I
want
to
encourage
you
to
maybe
start
the
FCP.
If
you
feel
is
appropriate,
I
think.
A
A
It's
just
don't
don't
make
that
joke
here,
it's
too
soon.
Alright,
next
order
of
business
issue,
five,
seven,
eight
nine
three
there's
been
no
updates
here.
This
is
still
on
me,
I
suppose.
Obviously,
I've
deployed
advertise.
This
I
have
to
decide
if
that's
a
problem,
but
in
terms
of
the
project
groups,
do
we
have
any
updates
next
to
our
business
with
a
safe
transmute.
We
get
the
idea
of
maybe
encouraging
a
meeting
proposal
here,
but
that's
not
really
an
update
anything
else
to
say.
B
Some
substantial
updates
on
that
front
actually,
so
one
was
that
there
was
the
inside
rust
blog
post
and
a
lot
of
feedback
from
that.
I
captured
some
of
the
feedback
there
into
the
packing
issue.
One
of
the
common
things
I
realized
was
that
people
are
not
quite
sure
how
to
format
inline
assembly
and
we
haven't
given
any
guidance
on
that
front.
B
So
I
took
the
first
pass
at
writing
a
inline
assembly
formatting
guide
for
the
format,
RFC's
style
team,
which
the
style
team
is
kind
of
defunct
at
the
moment,
but
mostly
because
they
declared
we
declared
that
we
didn't
have
any
more
work
to
do
so.
We
should
come
back
and
solve
this
problem
and
finally,
and
the
course
of
that
discussion
we
realized
that
multi-line
assembly
statements
were
something.
B
Very
difficult
to
format,
precisely
because
rust
format
would
not
be
able
to
mess
around
inside
the
string
because
there'd
be
concerned
about
that
having
semantic
effect.
So
we
talked
about
the
idea
of
allowing
multiple
quoted
strings
one
per
logical
line
of
assembly,
so
that
you
could
put
each
instruction
in
a
separate
string
argument
and
then
rust
format
would
be
able
to
freely
indent
each
of
those
string.
Arguments
independently
and
formatting
for
assembly
would
suddenly
work
much
nicer.
B
B
A
A
One
of
the
goal,
if
you
have
some
code
like
this
one
of
the
goals
of
stock
Barros,
was
that
we
can
actually
move
this,
this
assignment
down
below
the
call
to
bar
now,
of
course,
if
you
have
an
ID
equals
unwind,
you
have
to
put
it
on
both
pads,
both
the
unwinding
path
and
the
normal
path.
But
nonetheless
the
point
is:
you
can't
really
observe
this,
but
we
realized
that
if
you
can
act
long
jump
over
the
frame,
then
if
we
moved
it
down
below
the
called
a
bar,
then
it
would
just
never
execute
them.
A
That
would
be
bad
and
it's
not
entirely
clear
whether
like,
for
other
reasons,
this
might
not
be
an
optimization.
We
can
do
in
particular
there's
some
debate
about.
Well
what
if
this
is
a
referent
like
a
memory
map
file
or
is
that
even
allowed?
Is
that
UB?
But
the
point
was
we
didn't
want
to
close
the
door
on
that,
so
we
basically
edited
the
RFC
to
not
say
to
leave
open
the
question
of
when
a
long
jump
is
allowed
and
to
say
that
you
know
we
can
tell
you
it's
definitely
not
allowed
under.
A
If
there
is
a
pending
instructor
and
the
that,
we
might
impose
some
conditions
and
we
sketched
out
some
ideas,
but
we
didn't
want
to
go
so
far
as
to
put
that
in
the
RFC.
That's
like
a
separate
RFC
with
that
change,
I
think
the
RFC
to
add
the
C
unwind
is
basically
ready
to
go.
A
C
B
B
B
A
There's
this,
so
the
next
agenda
item
would
be
number
six,
nine
seven
four
one
perform
WF
check,
well-formed
check.
This
is
a
thing
we
talked
about
making
a
meeting
to
discuss
the
overall
strategy.
This
actually
probably,
is
a
good
idea
to
do
that
meetings.
You
know
rather
than
later
now
that
I
think
about
it,
because
there
could
be
addition
related
implications.
A
B
B
But
I
nominated
this,
because
it
is
something
that
would
likely
need
to
be
deferred
to
the
2121
Edition,
because
there
is
a
rare
but
possible
backward
compatibility
issue
in
that
you
could
have
named
a
function
using
non-standard
style,
with
a
name
identical
to
that
of
your
structure
and
use
it
as
a
smart
constructor
function
and
in
fact,
the
most
common
case
of
people
doing.
This
is
to
work
around
the
fact
that
rust
doesn't
automatically
create
such
a
function.
For
you
for
a
type
alias.
D
A
Have
definitely
done
that
intentionally.
Sort
of
for
the
reason
that
that
I
just
mentioned.
A
B
So
I
don't
think
the
proposal
was
to
change
name
resolution.
I
think
the
proposal
was
to
do
the
same
automatic
creation
of
a
tuple
struct
constructor
when
you
do
an
alias
I,
think
that's
the
only
proposal
here,
I,
don't
know
if
that's
actually
implemented
in
a
magic
way
inside
of
the
name
resolution
layer,
but.
A
A
B
For
what
it's
worth,
one
of
I
don't
know
if
this
will
be
a
problem
or
not,
but
one
of
the
common
reasons
to
use
a
type
alias
instead
of
a
pub
use
is
if
the
thing
on
the
right
is
not
just
my
struck.
It's
my
struct
with
T
so,
for
instance,
pub
type
specific,
alias
equals
generic
struck
of
specific
type.
A
A
A
A
A
D
A
D
A
D
A
A
A
One
thing
that
occurred
to
me
is:
we
could
certainly
add
such
a
flag
as
a
deaf
sea
or
an
unstable
flag,
and
then
you
know
I'm
gonna
have
to
stabilize
it
at
the
same
time
to
stabilize
things
like.
In
fact,
it
never
really
needs
to
be
stabilized,
because
it's
only
meant
to
be
used
if
you're
pinning
lightly,
it
might
be
nice
to
stabilize
it,
and
it
has
no
effect
unstable
so
that
you
can
just
have
this
consistent
set
of
flags
that
you
passed
in
the
matter.
What?
A
A
A
But
that
that
reminds
me
of
I
think
another
leg.
Team
proposal
like
Help
Wanted
Lang
team
proposal
might
be
putting
this
year
because
it's
coming
to
mind
raw
pointer
methods,
I,
don't
know
I,
don't
know
if
I
have
the
energy
I
think
that
would
be
an
important
usability
improvement
for
this,
but
I
don't
think
I
have
the
energy
to
think
about.
There
are
any
complications
involved.
A
Instead
of
having
static,
mute
and
once
a
static,
we'll
know,
if
we
need
to
talk
about
a
year,
seems
obvious,
we
could
assign
it
to
votes
if
we're
gonna.
Do
that
I
think
my
part
of
why
I
added
this
on
the
list
was
that
if
we
moved
to
an
MCP
proposal,
I
want
to
be
noticing
and
redirecting
new
RCS,
which
raises
an
interesting
question
here
about
like.
A
A
A
There's
also
this
one
stabilized
transmute
in
constant
statics,
so
I
think
there
was
some
questions
raised.
The
last
time
next
agenda
item,
seven
to
nine
to
zero,
where
we
talked
about
the
fact
that
we
don't
allow
unsafe
code
and
why
and
I
think
for
those
who
rich
did
there
was
a
link
explaining
why
but
I
think
it
right
is
kind
of
what
I
expected
that
I
haven't
really
quite
decided.
A
Where
is
this
one
a
light
or
a
size
RFC
to
five
like
this
is
a
really
old
one
and
I
feel
like
we
keep
going
back
and
forth
and
I.
Remember
Josh,
you
had
a
concern
with
I
was
proposing
that
maybe
we'll
just
close
this
and
you
didn't
want
to
I
think
it
comes
back
to
basically
a
question
of
how
soon
are
we
going
to
be
able
to
get
to
the
more
general
solution
to
this
problem?
I.
B
When
we
last
talked
about
this,
we
had
not
yet
really
finalized
or
even
really
written
a
template
for
the
major
change
process.
Yet
I
propose
that
I
am
okay
with
the
idea
of
closing
this
and
opening
a
change
proposal
that
says
we'd
like
to
solve
the
underlying
problem
of
having
to
specify
the
size
of
a
static
slice
and
then
linking
to
this
RFC
and
saying
okay,
this
could
work
or
constant
Eric's
could
work
we'd
like
a
solution.
That's
forward
compatible
and
doesn't
introduce
technical
debt,
but
we'd
also
like
a
solution
sooner
rather
than
later.
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
A
B
Wanted
to
bring
attention
to
their
bins
several
news
articles
recently
about
zoom.
This
is
leaving
aside
the
whole
thing
they
had
claiming
that
they
had
into
end
encryption
when
they
really
didn't
meant.
Oh
well,
it's
in
to
end
as
long
as
what
you
think
of
one
of
the
ends
as
being
our
server,
so
misleading.
B
Marketing
aside,
that
was
a
month
ago,
there
were
two
more
recent
events,
one
where
they
suspended
a
large
number
of
activist
accounts
in
China,
discussing
topics
that
are
considered
controversial
in
China
things
like
tienamin
square,
as
well
as
a
separate
report
that
they
put
out
a
note
that
they've
decided
to
stop
encrypting
free
calls
so
that
they
can
more
easily
collaborate
with
law
enforcement,
give
people
access
to
meetings,
etc.
This
is
between
the
various
news
reports
on
this.
It's
pretty
clear
that
zoom
is.
A
B
There
I
have
seen
given
the
current
situation,
a
number
of
potentially
interesting
alternatives.
There
are
services
that
are
hosting
things
that
previously
required
standing
up
your
own
server,
so
there
are
things
like
jitsi,
for
example,
there
are
hosted
instances
of
that
we
may
be
able
to
use,
and
there
are
a
few
other
possibilities
out
there.
A
A
Let's
talk
about
what
our
requirements
are
like
some
of
the
features
I'm
making
use
of
cloud
recording
transcription,
not
sure
how
important
that
is,
but
it's
you
seems
nice,
of
course,
working
with
which
sounds
like
a
joke,
but
you
know
it's
not
taken
for
granted,
in
particular
with
larger
number
of
participants,
but
you
know
people
often
just
can't
connect
to
some
service
or
another
reliably.
I
think
there
are
yeah.
There
are
some
places
where
a
zoom
is
not
great
like
it
doesn't
have
a
well
a
client
that
works
very
well.
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
A
A
Think
the
right
thing
is
I
had
to
fix
the
rust
team.
The
way
the
teams
are
set
up
in
the
rust
team
repo,
which
would
then
sync
them
with
a
github
team,
which
would
then
make
them
eligible
I
just
didn't
do
that
work
yet,
but
I
like
having
I
like
this,
and
it
could
work
for
instead
of
labels
in
general,
like
we
can,
just
you
can
assign
up
to
ten
people
so
seems
like
a
pretty
reasonable
way
to
express
interest,
and
then
you
have
your
little
face.
Show
up
the
only
thing.
A
I
have
some
hesitation
about
I
is
it.
You
know
having
like
an
issue
for
each
project.
Group
seems
nice,
but
it
kind
of
duplicates
I,
don't
know
if
they
people
want
to
make
announcements
in
other
places.
There's
like
a
duplication.
Well,
you
put
it
here
or
you
post
it
in
the
comment
on
the
repo.
What
but
I
sort
of
like
having
a
place
where
we
can
easily
review?
What
did
we
say
in
the
meetings.